Case closed: police shooting justified

Monday

Sep 29, 2008 at 2:15 AM

This is in response to the Times editorial ("Case closed? Yarmouth police officer shot and killed in self-defense, but serious questions remain," Sept. 24). I am curious about what type of police training your editorial board has received to allow you to reach such conclusions. You must have been through some extensive police training that I have not undergone.

ERIC NUSS

This is in response to the Times editorial ("Case closed? Yarmouth police officer shot and killed in self-defense, but serious questions remain," Sept. 24). I am curious about what type of police training your editorial board has received to allow you to reach such conclusions. You must have been through some extensive police training that I have not undergone.

Here are the facts: Andre Martins felt it necessary to drive 80-90 miles per hour through residential neighborhoods to avoid an arrest for operating without a license. Martins had used illegal narcotics, and still chose to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, showing complete disregard for others on the road. Martins failed to stop when signaled by a police officer. He drove his vehicle onto a lawn, and ended up facing Van Ness.

Martins next chose to ignore the orders of Van Ness, and drove his vehicle directly at him, striking him with his vehicle's side-view mirror. Van Ness fired his weapon in defense of his own life. These are the facts.

Your first question is: Could Van Ness have avoided the accelerating car without firing a shot? The facts are that Van Ness had nowhere to go. He was outside of the driver's door of his car when Martins accelerated toward him. This caused him to be trapped between his vehicle and the oncoming car. His firing of his weapon caused Martins to turn away from the gunfire as stated in Trooper Mason's report, thus saving Van Ness' life.

I ask you, where would you have Van Ness retreat to avoid the oncoming vehicle? The fact is that there was nowhere for him to go, so he responded as his training had taught him.

You then ask that if Van Ness had allowed the vehicle to speed away, would all have been lost? Let's not lose sight of the facts. Martins was driving the way he was because he did not wish to be arrested for operating without a license, as well as a minor drug charge and violation of a restraining order. He has now upped the ante and drove his vehicle directly at a uniformed police officer, striking him in the process. Do you actually believe that Martins would now come to his senses (after committing a felony) and stop his vehicle and allow himself to be taken into custody? More likely he would have been involved in a major collision where not only he would have been injured or killed, but so would have the mother of his children or an innocent civilian.

You then attempt to draw similarities to two recent incidents which occurred in the town of Barnstable. Neither of these incidents are even remotely close to the one encountered by Van Ness. The first involves an officer approaching a vehicle on the passenger side, and the operator of that vehicle swerving at the officer. Your comparison makes no mention as to whether or not the Barnstable officer had a means of retreat. Van Ness did not.

Your second comparison involves the individual in the excavator who was apprehended with the use of a bean bag gun. You are trying to insinuate that Van Ness had other options, possibly the deployment of a bean bag gun. This comparison is silly. In order for Van Ness to deploy a bean bag gun, he would have to shut off the ignition of his cruiser, exit his cruiser and unlock the trunk to retrieve the plastic gun case where the bean bag gun is stored. He would then have to break the plastic flex cuff used to secure it, summon a second officer to verify the round which he is loading (they are stored unloaded) was in fact a bean bag. Next he would load the round and then deploy it. I am certain that your police training has also taught you that a bean bag is deployed only against a non-lethal threat. I am pretty certain that a two-ton vehicle being driven directly at you is considered a lethal threat. As I am certain you can now see, this would be ludicrous.

A better comparison to this incident would be the 2007 shooting where Barnstable Police Officer Jeffrey Jackson needed to discharge his firearm to keep Anthony Roberts from escaping (in a vehicle) the custody of the police. In this case, Officer Jackson used the proper amount of force to keep Roberts from escaping and endangering countless civilians. The similarities are great. However, your editorial failed to mention this case.

Finally, I would like to inform you that I have worked with Van Ness since he was hired by the Yarmouth Police Department. Van Ness is without a doubt the most highly motivated and dedicated police officer that I have ever had the privilege to work with. And don't worry. If you need a police officer some night due to some unforeseen emergency, he will put his own life in danger to get to you as quickly as possible to render assistance. CASE CLOSED!